Craig Dunn recently wrote about "Political support for life after birth":
We simply can no longer demand that a woman give birth to a baby and then feel no sense of responsibility for the well-being of the child. We are a nation that has spent vast amounts of money over the years on every type of special interest handout known to man and lobbyist.
We have bailed out, handed out and stimulated with trillions of dollars. We have run up a staggering federal debt by spending funds on duplicative weapons systems, alternative energy boondoggles, massive federal government employment and programs of immense waste. Yet we have failed to serve many of those who have been unfortunate enough to not be able to afford a K Street or Statehouse lobbyist.
If we really want to dramatically reduce the number of abortions, we will take actions that support our words. We will provide adequate pre-natal care, support infant nutrition programs, aid the adoption process, provide sufficient physical, occupational and speech therapy for those with disabilities, support special needs education, foster expanded child care programs for working mothers and support occupational and residential programs for adults with disabilities who are unable to work and live on their own.
I couldn't have written it much better myself. Regardless of one's personal opinion about a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, as a society, we simply must support the well-being of children and families. This includes health care, nutrition programs, child care, and services for adults who have disabilities as well. Can we demand that public dollars be targeted to those truly in need? Absolutely. Can we encourage providers and patients and other stakeholders to work to create new program delivery models that will save taxpayer dollars? Of course. But to simply cut these types of programs, without regard to the children and families being served, cannot be justified in today's environment of bailouts and excessive defense spending.